It may not hold you back that much. It’s always confusing to read an article where the way your mind works is seen as an error. It must work somehow. You canno

It may not hold you back that much. It’s always confusing to read an article where the way your mind works is seen as an error. It must work somehow. You cannot operate without simple algorithms or more complex “narratives”. If you ever moved you know the feeling of a new apartment when you have no automatic habits yet. You have to decide everything - how to hold your keys, where is a light switch, which side is too sunny and requires blinds, does elevator work or is it just slow. But then you adapt cause your mind automates the hell out of it. Left hand, further on the right, the one with the table, it’s not that slow (it is). If you ever learned something new, you know the feeling and you know how much you want an overview before digging deep. To make sense of it, to structure it anyhow, just that much. Otherwise it stays untackable and overwhelming. A waiter in the article is a template/overview that you start with. It’s only a problem if you’re “a little autistic” and stick to it despite receiving negative feedback. But then narratives aren’t your primary problem. If your every thought and action started afresh, you’d be incapable. Otoh detecting that an algorithm is messing with your life is a useful skill. I think that the article could drop the (probably click/read-bait) idea of “narrative bad” and instead simply point out that this phenomenon exists and can be analyzed for overuse.